LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteIs Iraq a quagmire? No. Is there a tuff fight to take baghdad and a couple other cities, Yes. 80% of the country is fine, its a few cities that you see all the fighting in
not the entire country.
I'm interested in seeing others opinions on what they believe the differences and similarities are between the US involvement in both Iraq and Vietnam. Your thoughts?
Is Iraq a quagmire? No. Is there a tuff fight to take baghdad and a couple other cities, Yes. 80% of the country is fine, its a few cities that you see all the fighting in
not the entire country.
The VC were supported by a highly skilled, motivated, professional North Vietnamese Army. After Tet '68 the VC were basically hamstrung. It was the NVA that kept up the fight and was the primary threat to US forces.
The Iraqi insurgents have no NVA to back them up. Any uniformed army that tries to "intervene" will be crushed. We appear to be winning the "hearts and minds" and the Iraqis seem to be willing to fight for themselves, unlike the ARVNs. Time will tell, but I think any comparisons are shallow at best. As was mentioned in another thread, Algeria would be a better historical comparison, but still faulty.
Rule 303
Well I do have to say no offense but Iraq is more like "Vietnam" then the 2nd Indochina war ever was...I'm interested in seeing others opinions on what they believe the differences and similarities are between the US involvement in both Iraq and Vietnam. Your thoughts?
"Hearts and minds" didn't matter much during the 2nd Indochina war. The communists were not fighting for that either. Yeah they threw out a lot of propganda. Hell it was more a diversion. Cutting the supply lines in Laos would have done everything that hearts and minds couldn't... starving the NVA...We appear to be winning the "hearts and minds"
Seeing as the ARVN took and inflicted the bulk of losses goes to show they did fight.We appear to be winning the "hearts and minds" and the Iraqis seem to be willing to fight for themselves, unlike the ARVNs.
"Seeing as the ARVN took and inflicted the bulk of losses goes to show they did fight."
Oh they fought.
Poorly.
Actually they didn't do the bad job they normally get credited as doing.
Really for being such an open war with the media everywhere it got badly written up...
Here's how I see it:
VC was backed by NVA and received considerable logisiticl and training assistance from the USSR.
Iraqi insurgents have no uniformed army to support them and while they get aid from places like Syria and from al-Qaieda it's onthing compared to the VC.
South Vietnamese gov't was corrupt and unpopular dictatorship.
Iraq's governement is democratically elected.
VC had widespread popular support.
Iraqi insurgents have only limited support and it's ddecreasing everyday.
Iraqi forces appear more competent than the ARVN was.
Just my $.02.
"We always have been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be, detested in France."
-Sir Arthur Wellesley
I have to disagree...
The "VC" was a tool of the North Vietnamese. Not backed. It was an invasion from the North.VC was backed by NVA and received considerable logisiticl and training assistance from the USSR.
Hearts and minds had rather little to do with the Communist victory in Indochina...VC had widespread popular support. Iraqi insurgents have only limited support and it's ddecreasing everyday.
Very very debatable. Much of the ARVNs bad rep came from trying to explain away America's inability to win, poor reporting, leadership and of course culture.Iraqi forces appear more competent than the ARVN was.
The ARVN had lots of excellent combat units such as the Airborne Division, Marine Division, Ranger Groups, Airborne Ranger Groups, the 1st Infantry Division and the 1st Armored Division. And those units were good all the way back in 1965. And on the same hand enough Iraqi soldiers have thrown down their guns, refused to train with us and joined the rebels. So saying the Iraqis are more competent might not hold water.
And the "competent" Iraqi forces are not facing tank assaults and artillery bombardments...
The war in Iraq has little in common with the 2nd Indochina War and yet more in common with the meaning of the term "Vietnam"...
Last edited by troung; 30 Jun 05, at 07:24.
Iraqis may not be supporting insurgents, but they hate americans for sure!
Hala Madrid!!
What planet are you from?Originally Posted by indianguy4u
May be u r from fox sugar cotted news planet.
Last edited by indianguy4u; 30 Jun 05, at 12:26.
Hala Madrid!!
Very poor generalization that is inaccurate.
1) The Kurds pretty much all love the US, with the exception of Ansar al Islam, who hate everybody.
2) To say that the majority of the Sunni hate the US would be a fair statement.
3) The Shia are a mixed bag, with a minority that hate the US (Al Sadr's crowd), a minority that love the US, and a majority that are in the middle and are indifferent.
As the insurgency continues and ISF take on more of the security duties and the terrorists continue to kill innocent Iraqi civilians of all sects, while US popularity won't skyrocket by any means, opinion towards the US will improve.
How come?
Hala Madrid!!
Because the stories of the evil American infidel sticking around only to rob Iraq of its oil and the romantic version of an insurgency fighting only to liberate Iraq from these evil infidels will be further dispelled as the Iraqi political process moves forward and the insurgency moves backwards.
My source of information is 6 months on the ground in Iraq and numerous conversations with an Iraqi friend who's in the same graduate program as me who moved to Michigan after Operation Desert Storm and spent the summer of 2004 in Baghdad with all of his relatives that are still in Iraq.
What i meant is , innocent iraqis are being killed everyday, while well armed & well organised US army is doing little to stop these attacks. How come then iraqis opinions will change of that US.
Hala Madrid!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: